In LR: to read the question first, then isolate the conclusion. Game changer. By knowing the question type you know if there is even a conclusion in the stimulus or if the answer choice should be the conclusion.

Interested !!

Stimulus: Taking vacations reduces exhaustion at work. So taking many short vacations a year will be more effective at reducing exhaustion than few long vacations.

Problem: short vacations are not the same as long vacations.

A: the problem isn't that each short vacation has the same effect, problem is that short vacations do not have the same effect as long vacations.

B: we don't care about other methods of reducing exhaustion bc that isn't what the office manager is discussing. The scope is specifically short vs long vacations. The scope is not all methods of reducing exhaustion.

C: problem isn't that each person has different needs in reducing exhaustion

D: problem isn't about total amount of time - because the stimulus is dealing with the same amount of time just how it's divided up.

E: Correct - bc the stimulus doesn't recognize how the effect of a long vacation is different than short vacation on exhaustion.

Hi would be interested!

Thank you so much! I will 100% sign up.

Choice B: what if the discounted tickets a year ago were 60% off and today they’re 5% off? If the average discounted price in constant dollars is the same as it was a year ago, and you have more discounted tickets to go around since 90% of the tickets sold today are discounted tickets (versus only 50% previous year) which bring the average price people pay down, therefore affirming the conclusion that on average people pay less today than one year ago.

@

Thank you! That is very helpful!

(also not the best at using this platform so please don't mind any errors)

I felt that they were harder in that they were less formulaic and trickier.

E: showing that (brillo boxes being considered art and not reg boxes) would be impossible if it was correct that (appearance alone determined art)

sigh

interested!

Stimulus: Typically Caligula is thought of as a cruel & insane tyrant as Emperor. But some modern historians are challenging this bc we have limited documentation about his cruelty and history about him was written by his enemies.

Q type: Strengthen. Either via added premise or by strengthening a given premise.

A: This provides further speculation. It doesn't say why there is less documentation. What if a fire in the library section where historical records of his time were kept is the reason we don't have as much documentation? What if there was a paper shortage so records weren't kept as much? We don't have the answer.

C: This answer choice provides (1) he was normal for his time and also points out that (2) other rulers were accused of doing the things Caligula is accused of but can be attributed to being considered a cruel ruler.

So (1) maybe he did these things and he was normal for his time. Or (2) opens up to maybe he did not do these things and rulers that are considered cruel are written about in this way.

Either way it helps bring about the modern historian's challenge of the traditional view.

I totally missed this and am super interested - please please add another one or is there any chance for last minute add please please let me know!!! This sounds so ideal and I would be so grateful.

All the experiment established was that the expert paintings were better but we can’t make the leap that that also means they are aesthetically pleasing on just this alone.

If the children’s paintings were aesthetically displeasing, then the bar is so low being better doesn’t do anything to establish that the expert’s paintings are aesthetically pleasing. This is why AC B must be true. Without it we are not able to adequately make that assumption.

Stimulus

Conclusion: BumbleB are better at pollinating some things than Honey B.

Support: Because BumbleB visit few plant species in small area and HoneyB go further and visits many plant species.

Answer Choices

A. HoneyB wider area than BumbleB -> HoneyB less efficient than BumbleB at any one of those species.

This is a pretty broad statement. We are only talking about some plants like cranberries that BumbleBs are more efficient at.

B: Correct - this would make sense. Because the fact that BumbleB visit few plant species is key part of what makes it more efficient (along with being in a small area). We know that HoneyB visits many species and BumbleB visits few plant species.

C: We don't know this, it generalizes all bees. We only know of BumbleBs/ HoneyBs. It's also contradictory to the stimulus. Broader area =/= smaller amt of species.

D: We don't know the likelihood of visiting. We just know the efficiency and the style of pollinating.

E: The stimulus isn't drawing comparison between a specific plant in a cranberry crop. It's about plants in general. As Adam Tyson on the Powerscore discussion stated: The proportional relationship between "likely to visit" and "efficiency" isn't supported.

Yes

As someone from an area with a lot of ticks this one made my skin crawl and i could not focus in the timed section. Still got it wrong in BR though ;/

I have the same question...

Earlier estimates using distance date certain stars older than the universe, impossible. Astronomer's method estimates they're much farther than that. Farther away = brighter.

Conclusion: So conflict between older estimate and age of universe resolved.

Prephrase: we need something that ties age with distance

C: The brighter a star, the younger. Tags up with farther away = brighter = younger.

D. This doesn't resolve the paradox of age and the new method resolving it.

You could have less than half (ie not most) old houses have 3+ apts which could still get you to twice as many apartments as old houses. Meaning it doesn’t require most houses to have more than one apartment, could be just that some old houses have so many apartments that the ratio is 2 apartments to 1 old house.

Hi moving to NYC soon please lmk - in the mid 160s

Signed up! Thank you.

Also check this out as it'll help you switch over to the newer format:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sczox8uJgD6yFSIkgr9q8ode0hhNtoMItFeBb3WkbTE/edit?pli=1&gid=157460206#gid=157460206

Yeah there's a solution for this already - you have to take PTs and drills in "current format" not the "obsolete format".

Hendry:

Most employee strikes should be legally permitted. Exception: Uni faculty. Faculty strikes harm students.

harm customers -> /legally permitted. ; legally permitted-> /harm customers

Since Hendry believes that most strikes should be legally permitted, then he must also believe that most of them do not harm customers.

Menkin:

IF TRUE: “harm customers -> /legally permitted”, we’d never have legally permitted strikes!

Menkin is implicitly stating the sufficient assumption to his argument. To make it be true that you'd never have legally permitted strikes, you have to have "all strikes harm employer's customers."